[Xmca-l] In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]

[Annalisa Aguilar]

This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's breakdown of ANL vs. LSV.

There are about 8 points total... [copypasta is a starch of art]

---------------------------------------------------
6. [The fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
---------------------------------------------------
You say:
"ANL believes that motivation determines perception. The norm of  perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for the community as a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in this context."

So is it the case that word-meaning is denied by ANL because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across the culture and cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the reason politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned as the sole arbiter of meaning.


  --- clip from previous post below

  Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:28:48 +0000

Annalisa wrote:

_6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning

    ----------

    ANL believes that the mental representation in a child's awareness
must _correspond_ directly to the object in reality, and not just
perceptually, but also how the object may relate and associate to
other objects and their meanings. The example is a table. Because of
this definition of, what I will call here for convenience (i.e., my
laziness) "object-awareness", ANL takes exception with LSV's
rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a generalization to
reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
(word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the existence of
these word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they are
what construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this because he
considers consciousness and intellect to be synonymous.

 ----------


Andy's reply to #6 above:
ANL believes that motivation determines perception. The norm of
perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning
it has for the community as a whole. I am questioning the validity of
this concept of "community as a whole" in this context.

>--end